The Typo-King and I

Like everyone, I am a busy person. I get up early to go to work, work long, hard days and come home to more responsibilities. I would love to write here more often and more deeply, but often cannot. When I do write, most often it is while I am ordering coffee (or sitting and drinking it quickly).  As I am typing, friends are often walking up to talk to me. I almost never have time to proof-read what I write. I am on call for patients 24-7 and am almost always interrupted before I have that luxury of reviewing. I do dream of having the time to write carefully. I do visit other blogs and so many are done very professionally.

Why am I telling you this? On more than one occasion, I have written things here and finally get a chance to read it a week later, only to be horrified by typos. Sometimes . . . okay, twice, I have had people send me e-mails to scold me for my typos. They said things like, “Hey Mike, if you are aspiring to be a writer, the it reflects poorly on you to write poorly on your blog. Go back and fix your typos!”

I feel embarrassed about that. However, I do have another problem and that is I have dyslexia. I didn’t know this until I was almost forty. But then things seemed to start making sense.

When I was attending my small elementary school in Tennessee, I greatly excelled in most school topics. It was especially true in science. I was seen by teachers and fellow students as a child prodigy in science. I won the district science fair in physics (first place) and was second in over-all scores. When I was in the seventh grade, I was invited to come up to the high school and do a class lecture to them on earth sciences (and demonstrating my home-made seismograph). But that suddenly changed when spelling tests were introduced. I failed miserably and after thinking I was bright . . . suddenly I knew I was stupid. I failed miserably in spelling bees too. Of course, in those days neither teachers nor myself knew of dyslexia.

As a Navigator, I did horribly at memorizing scripture. I bet I spent three times as much time on it as my roommates, but did worse than the others when our leader asked us to quote the verses we had memorized that week.  I remember our staff leader calling me out, in front of the whole group, of not taking scripture memory seriously.

I tried to avoid writing classes in high school (while writing a lot on my own) because of public ridicule. When I started college, I had no choice but to take creative writing. I remember a profession calling me aside as he was assigning grades. He told me, that he had never had a situation where the best writer in his class was also the worst. I was confused. He said the content and creativity was superb, some of the best he had ever seen among his years of teaching. However, I was seriously hamstrung by misspellings and strange subsections such as “two” for “to.” So. he gave me an A and a D for his class, but averaged them as a B (hoping that I would work on the mechanics of typing).

I know that dyslexia is far more common that we thought and some reading this may have it. But when I see words, I see them (in my mind at least) like the scrambled letters that you must type on webpages to prove that you are not a robot.

My book, Butterflies in the Belfry, does not have this problem because I hired three different editors to help me clean it up.

I want to come back to the comment that I am an embarrassment to myself, as a writer, when I write here so poorly. But what they really should mean is that I am a poor typer. I type fast and as I try to read what I type, I don’t see blatant errors. So, to help with this, I may do an experiment where I do video blog posts.

I do have to run or hike almost daily (or at least 5 times a week) or I would need a forklift to get my (would be) fat ass out of the house. I want to try and figure out a way to do a video while I hike. The logistics will be a little hard as I don’t want to create a shaky video that will leave any viewer puking on the floor from motion sickness.

Stay tuned.

Mike

 

The Legitimate Swamp-Drainer

I have heard the comment from many Donald Trump supporters, that the reason they voted for the man, was because he was going to reform Washington. The need to reform Washington is legitimate. It really is astounding, that for the past five years, the disapproval rating for Congress is around 70% (see ). So, looking at our dissatisfaction with the way our government works, wanting a “swamp drainer” is a reasonable and noble cause and I respect them, at least for their motive.swamp

We constantly hear (even before this year) of how partisan the Congress and Senate have become. Where their perspective party’s winning is all that matters anymore. Where each side will distort the other. We have also been exposed to story after story of elected officials being involved with bribes and other acts of financial mischief (see this partial list).

I don’t want to turn my blog into a weekly political cometary—and God knows how disappointment I was in the election this year—but I do think it is relative to culture, and how Christians encounter culture. So, I am writing one more—but not necessarily the last—political post from the angle of what a good “swamp-drainer” would look like.

Let’s imagine that the swamp drainer was President Mary Jones (to borrow the names of two of my—now deceased—aunts). At the center of Mary’s desire for public service was to really help America to be a great country, for all its people. She would want to end partisanship and corruption and create an environment where ONLY what is best for the people of this great country is served.

1) Mary would either run as an independent, or as soon as she is elected (as a Republican or Democrat), declare her political independence and having no party association.

2) She would be extremely transparent and honest. She would put any financial interest of her own, or her family, in a blind trust. She would make all her tax returns public.

3) She would have a review of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) to make sure there were no negative political or financial influences. She may even have a group of political ethics experts to do an audit to make sure the OCE was acting independently and above reproach. Then, when we have been assured that they doing good and unbiased work, their budget would be increased and they would be given more legal power to do their work.

4) She would work to pass laws to create greater scrutiny of the role of lobbyists and their access to elected officials. She would work to overturn the court decision on Citizens United ( see )

5) She would work to create a law where there were tight limits on contributions and spending at the primary election level. Once parties had chosen their candidate and the national, presidential election was underway, those campaigns would be tax-payer funded (and much less money than spent now). There would be no outside money spent on the general election. Each party would be given the same amount of money to spend and the emphasis would be placed on the substantive exchange of ideas, such as debates and detailed platform articles rather than TV sound-bite ads. She would also work to make it easier for all legitimate parties to get on the ballots. Legal reforms would be sought to make it much easier to sue opposing parties for libel, for giving out any false information about the other candidates, and to” sue them well.”

7) Efforts would be made, (bills passed), that would make it easier for people to vote. At the same time, safeguards would be kept in place to prevent non-citizens from voting or opportunities for voting fraud.

8) An independent team of legal experts would study the voting districts to make sure they were not created for political purposes.

9)If a candidate suggested there was voter fraud, without supporting grounds, he or she would have committed a federal law against acts of treason and face incrimination and possible incarceration.

9) She would increase the executive press corps and give them greater access to her and her executive branch’s work. She would welcome press scrutiny for all branches of government, knowing that a good press shines the light on mischief. She would hold executive press conferences weekly, if possible.

10) She would work to pass laws that prevent all financial influence of lobbyists (see the campaign rules I’ve mentioned above).

I could go on and on. My point is, with a great desire of truth a good president would seem very different than the one we are getting. I suspect the “drain the swamp” mantra is another part of the conning of the American voter.

creature

A good reporter is doing God’s work. They are the secular prophets of today, shining the light on truth and lies. If they are demonized as liberal or “fake,” then their credibility is shaken and the swamp grows.

press

Once again, I only had a brief moment to write and without the opportunity to proofread.

Mike

The Dangers of Writing in Candor — The Butterflies in the Belfry Goes to Press

This morning I signed the legal document, to start the presses rolling, to print Butterflies in the Belfry, Serpents in the Cellar. I have written books before, taking months. This project has taken over 25 years, including the research. The actual writing has taken almost 10 years. The best way I can describe this moment is, anticlimactic. A simple e-mail came with a “Doc-u-sign” link and I signed it.

Part of my recovery from evangelicalism was to seek candor. I found my old world being made up of smoke and mirrors, of illusions and delusions. But living in candor is very hard. Writing in candor is even more difficult. I am sure there will be days ahead, when I stir up the anger of the protectors of the old evangelical way. On those days I may regret publishing this book.

But I feel that candor is a must, if I want to accomplish my book’s intention. That purpose is to help those, also disillusioned with the brand of Christianity they were raised with, to know that they are not alone. I also want them to know that there is an explanation and a sensible path out. But to reach them, I have to allow them to know . . . that I know them and where they are coming from. The only way to help them see that is to share with great candor—although not so flattering—stories of American evangelicalism.

Finding the right level of truthfulness is hard to do. If someone was to live in total honesty, they would be offensive to others and corrupt the social mores. The best example, (and this is a real-life—although simplest—example), is where someone ask you to do something that you don’t want to do. For example, someone ask, “Would you come to a dinner party at my house?” Then you reply in total honestly, “No. I would rather sit at home, read a book and watch some TV. I’ve been with people all week and just want a break from them.”  That host may try to read more into it. They may think, “They don’t like me.” Or “What’s wrong with them that they don’t like people?”

The proper thing that people, including Christians do, is to lie . . . or to go, out of guilt. If they lie, they say, “I would love to. It sounds wonderful. However, I think I have the flu.” Then there are no questions asked.

So, trying to live in total candor is very difficult. Writing in such a way is more difficult because they have your words in front of them, to use against you . . . forever. It is a paper trail.

Now the caveat to this book’s over candor (if that is possible), is that I had to go through a very rigorous legal review. While I am publishing it under my own publishing company logo, the press required lawyers to read it cover to cover and to have me make sever huge revisions. For example, when I spoke of my childhood pastor having a mistress (and it was public knowledge . . . and actually, after all of these years I just ran into him and his mistress at Thanksgiving), that had to be axed. There were many other stories, which I wanted to tell, that had to be edited out as well.

To avoid all of this scrutiny, I could have written under a false pen-name. I could also have “fictionalized” the story, as did Frank Schaeffer did in his Becker trilogy. But even his Becker series caused a lot of heart burn among his family (mostly his sister and her husband). I know because I was around them (at a distance) during this time.

I am not a good self-promoter. Maybe I am and just don’t see my own narcissistic tendencies. I know a lot of people write books, just like a lot of people want to be pop stars. Few succeed at either. I really don’t seek “success,” unless success means that I could quit my day job and write for a living. When I write now, just like I’m doing here, I have to always write in a great rush with people mad at me because I took so long. Already, in writing this short piece I have had several interruptions (I’m at work but am not schedule to start work for another 30 minutes). So, I almost never have time to proof-read. Writing with proof-reading would be a wonderful luxury.  I am dyslexic and can make blatant mistakes when I type fast. I’m often taken behind the shed for the errors I’ve made in my haste. But, if I don’t write in haste, I could never write. I digress.

So, the point I was about to make, is that I am not seeking financial success and certainly not recognition. I do, however, have an intense desire to get this book in the hands of the thousands who have given up on Christianity.  I wrote this book for those people. I have to concede, that those people are not the ones who will be offended by my candor. It is those who still hold up the facades that Christians are all decent people and to suggest otherwise, is a mortal sin . . . those are the ones I will really piss off.

Mike

 

2016 The Year Truth Died

As this year grows to a close, my mind in muddled in the confusion and mystery of the past twelve months. Of course, the US election dominates any review. The question is how do we frame it? There are many perspectives and sidebars to this political year, each deserving a well thought out discussion. However, one could get lost in the particulars. If you are an American you have heard the discussions, ad nauseam. What did the Clinton campaign do wrong? Why were the blue-collar workers ignored by the Democrats? How did the Republicans, Trump specifically, use the media to their advantage? What about the great principles that divide the two major parties? One principle, you might say, is pro-social programs and bigger government. The other is in favor for less government, stronger military, and less social welfare. Did the Republicans win because Americans want less government and a bigger military? Why did Evangelicals vote for Trump, who personally violate all their ideals of morality?

What I think is the much bigger issue, is the fact that 2016 will be the year when the concept of real truth, was met with demise. Politics are always dishonest. However, as far as I know, there has never been more lies told during an election than this year. This will be a lasting impact from this year. Not only was there a totally reckless disregard for truth and accuracy, but those who lied the most (per Politico ratings) did the best. This will most likely set a precedent for years, if not decades to come. This model will not only influence political endeavors but, I expect, all of life.

This loss of truth has been coming for a very long time. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when reason was at its height, the pursuit of truth was taken to an art form. The only problem was, the view of reason was based on the Aristotlean view of reason being infallible. Then that view was taken to the extreme position that; 1) reason can lead you to pure truth every time (if done well), and 2) the ultimate source of reason is taken from the senses (empirical). This became the birth of modern atheism. Under this new understanding of Aristotelian philosophy, if reason is built only on empirical evidence, then, if something cannot be observed, it cannot be true.

This form of pure (unfallen) reason could not be sustained. It resulted in the great disillusionment of the twentieth centuries, being ushered in by the first and second world wars. The optimism of the 1800s suggested that reason would take us into a better and better world. When that did not happen (based on moral failures and the fact that reason does have its limits) there was a great disillusionment about reason. Both the secular and Christian worlds started to give up on reason by 1900. This surrendering of hope only worsened during WWI and WWII. It came to the Christians in the form of irrational faith through mysticism and the consideration of reason as faith’s nemesis. It came to the secular world through what is generally labeled as Post-Modernism.

We, Christians, were warned by the futurists and prophets (I use that last term lightly, not seriously) such as Francis Schaeffer, that we must stand guard against the loss of reason. His most famous book, Escape from Reason, was his first shot across this bow. However, he saw the source of the loss of truth within the secular world. In the early part of the twentieth century, the period Schaeffer was most familiar with, there was already experimentation among the secularists of the world of the absurdity (were “truth” was extraneous to life and the only thing that mattered was experience).

What neither Schaeffer (or myself) didn’t see coming. was that this post-reason culture would find its best home within Evangelicalism. It has never been clearer than this year, when you were more likely to get a ridiculous conspiracy theory video link from a Christian than a non-Christian. But how did this happen?

I believe the roots of this loss of truth were sewed during the first decade of the twentieth century.  Corresponding to the secular movement into the post-modern absurdity, there was a so-called revival starting within Evangelicalism that was based on irrationality. This movement evolved into the charismatic movement of the 1960s through the present.  I was part of some of those groups in the seventies and clearly, reason was strongly discouraged as “worldly.”

Stemming from this movement came the TV evangelists (many from the different variations of the “Churches of God.”) They were charismatics who had adopted a prosperity Gospel approach to getting personal wealth (at all cost). Jim and Tammy Bakker were examples of this movement. It is within this environment that they all entered this factitious world of christo-show business.  In this world, not only was reason devalued but where lies highly appraised. Those lies were the means to money, fame, and manipulation.

Frank Schaeffer tells the story (in Crazy for God) about when he and his father first came to America to promote their films. They spent the night with Pat Robertson and the next morning they were going to appear on his talk show. They all got up together, had breakfast, and headed to the studio. While sitting in the makeup room together, Pat started to tell his makeup artist an amazing story. He said that morning, when he came out to the garage, it was full of poisonous snakes. He had never seen anything like it before and thought of it as a message from God. Francis looked over at Frank in amazement because none of what he was saying was true. Not only did Pat not care about lying, but he lied right in front of witnesses who knew it wasn’t true. Frank said that his father whispered, “We are working with a bunch of fools.”  It was part of the total divorce between truth, real truth, and showmanship.

One time I was thumbing through the channels and came across a syndicated TV evangelist with a guest. That guest was someone I had known in my personal life a long time ago, who had been part of the same Navigator group I was with. They had written a book and were on TV sharing his profound testimony (he had done some horrible murders after his years with the Navigators). The only problem, the testimony was a total fabrication. During the years he was working with our local Navigator ministry, he said in his book and on TV, that he was a practicing Satanist. Then he claimed (this was years after going through all our intense Bible study programs) that he had never seen a Bible until he was thirty years old.  I called the station because I was so concerned. I was surprised when the host of the show (a well-known Christian talk-show host) sent me an e-mail telling me to basically shut up. That she didn’t care if what the guy was saying was true, because “God was using his testimony.” This is a profound philosophical development and I won’t even start to explore the ramifications of that type of thinking.

The bar for truth among evangelicals became very, very low over time. The historical word for truth (going back to the Greeks) was replaced by the word truth, that only meant consistent with the theological or political position that the person subscribed to. If a lie furthers the kingdom of God (the thinking goes) then it is okay. If a lie furthers my candidate’s possibilities of winning, then that lie is okay.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not attacking one political party or the other. Both sewed lies. I will let the reader decide who sewed the most

But the real issue is this total lack of candor and real truth. The problem with this detour around truth is that if God is really there, then he dwells within reality. The boundaries of reality are marked by truth (not talking doctrine or political views here but simply what is real). The more we disengage with truth, the fainter the face of God becomes.

It is imperative that we repent of the path, which we are on. Maybe this will be the beginning of the demise of American Evangelicalism. One would only hope. But the hope springs to a new Christianity in which real truth, matters. Where candor replaces a fake spirituality, which I was taught along with my peers. Where Christianity is not blended with different political systems, or national cultures creating an unholy marriage. That is the dream. The dream where our pursuit is for justice, kindness and walking humbly with God is the essence of our spirituality. Long live truth, real, factual truth.

Once again, I had to type this as fast as I could type as I only had ten minutes to put my thoughts together. Please over-look the typos. If I have time I will come back later to proof-read.

 

 

 

The Art of Social Media–To Follow or Not

When it comes to social media, I am truly a bull in a china shop. I honestly don’t know how Facebook works. I see someone’s post and then try to come back to it a minute later and it is gone. I post things intended for one or more select people, and then, somehow it is broadcast to large groups. I only joined it to see photos and hear stories about my family, especially my grandchildren.

Now there are two schools of thought when it comes to what you share on Facebook / Twitter and the likes. I think the Donald is redefining that, whether intended or not. The first school, which I have heard from many,believes that it is totally taboo to share personal opinions on social media sources, just like it is an unspoken rule that you don’t bring up politics or religion at the family reunion. I believe those who hold this view do it for noble causes, mostly to keep the peace. When I share personal opinions in these media forms, I sense these people feeling socially embarrassed for me, like I had just farted while standing in the reception line to greet the queen of England, as if I didn’t know better.

The second view is that social media is the forum that used to occupy the open areas on the Acropolis of Athens, where controversial topics were not only discussed two thousand years ago, but even invited. It was a true exchange of ideas.I believe that in our society, social media has become part of this forum. It is true that rarely you can change someone’s ideas with such postings, but you can make it clear that other ideas do exist and that is the most that you can hope for. Otherwise, they could end up with the notion that they represent the only choice in the matter.

There is a third view, which I greatly respect. I know many pastors and Christian leaders on FB, who never, ever post political or other opinions. I don’t know how they refrain, but they do.I would make a horrible pastor.  I think they are doing the right thing. If you are a pastor of a lot of people there will be a spectrum of ideas within the group you serve. By sharing your political views, you alienate many. I heard (on the radio and TV at least) far too many pastors preaching a certain political view this season.

I have the sense that many of my Evangelical friends have blocked me. Again, I don’t know how Facebook works and in my lack of understanding, my perceptions could be wrong. But when I have sent them personal messages about personal, noncontroversial things, they no longer respond.  There could be many reasons why they have chosen to do this, one being their view that I am being socially inappropriate when I share views on controversial topics . . . and I have been known to be quite candid.

I have also blocked many friends over this political season and now I am working on unblocking them now  if I can only figure out how to. While I don’t know the motive of the others for blocking me, I do know my motives. My motives are simple. When someone posts things that I find offensive (usually it is what I consider fake news stories) and if they do it over and over and over, I am afraid, out of the lack of self-discipline, that I will say something very hateful back to them. It is for this reason, I have blocked some. It is the same principle that an alcoholic removes all booze from their house if they are serious about staying on the wagon. Now that the heat of the political race is calming down, I hope that I can allow those posts to show up once more and that I will not take them personally.

My blocking of friends and family is never because I am mad at them, that I don’t like them or I want to punish them. They have the right to their opinions and I respect that. So this blocking was clearly regarding my own weaknesses.

But, no one needs to embarrassed for me, as if I don’t know better when I post opinions–that are more than just butterfiles and kittens–on FB, that I don’t know better. It is because that I think these social media sources are a proper place for discussion, as long as it is kept civil. There is never a place for bullying or being disrespectful and I am certainly not advocating for that. Mike

 

The Election and the Evangelical view of Nature

This topic is relative to the issue of Donald Trump’s selection of Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Evangelical Free Church) as Interior Secretary, Scott Pruitt (Baptist) as the director of the EPA and possibly Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon (Congregational Christian Church), as Secretary of State. All three of these individuals are pro-development and anti-protection of the environment as well as serious doubters about global warming. Tillerson has a close relationship with Russia. The evangelical view of nature is an essential piece to this development.

Donald Trump’s, as a narcissist (this is not an accusation or personal attack but a clinical perspective of a true mental disorder ( see  ). The reason he is against regulation is because such regulations do interfere with corporate profits. Fo him, money=power and power=self love. Of course, Trump had to hoodwink the evangelicals because he could not win without their votes. Now it is payback time and he wants to reward his evangelicals (and will need to use them in four years again) so there is a marriage of convenience between the religion of money-power-self love and American evangelical interests. it is easy to find evangelical-leaning people who agree with Trump’s views of nature because of the evangelicals share the same view.

I address this view (lightly) in a book that I have coming out in January, Butterflies in the Belfry, but I want to write a future book devoted to the issue of the Christian view of nature. In simple terms, for the sake of a blog post, and many of you already know this, the present evangelical view is that this material world is more of Satan’s domain and God is, sending Jesus back very soon, going to destroy the material world and rapture everyone off this planet. So, with that philosophical orientation, it makes no sense to protect this earth, especially if it cost you some personal sacrifice (giving up your Hummer for an electric car) or business profits (Trump’s motive). That is why most evangelicals (especially who have blended their Christian theology with Conservative Political values) don’t believe in global warming. No amount of science can convince them because it is not evidence-based but philosophical.

It is my personal perspective that nature was created by God as a glorious thing for us to enjoy and protect. It is STILL part of God’s domain and will be into the eternal future as it is clear that this material world will be renewed and refreshed, not destroyed (read NT Wright). Therefore, the Christian should be the greatest advocate in our society to protect nature, just as we should be the loudest voices in protecting human rights, including the human rights of minorities.

The present position of the evangelical view of nature comes from two primary sources. The first is a very old view that was advocated by Plato and absorbed into the early Church (I write about this extensively in Butterflies in the Belfry). The second source is C.I. Scofield .  He was a lawyer who lived and wrote in the mid to late nineteenth century. He came up with the idea of God working in big dispensations in history. Part of his theory was that; 1) we are living in the last days, 2) God will work through Israel again, 3) we, Christians, will be raptured out of this horrible world, and 4) God will totally destroy this material world, somewhat flushing it down the toilet, because it is not redeemable.

Scofield was not a brilliant Biblical scholar. What he said flew in the face of 1500 years of great Biblical scholars. He was a lawyer who had been in trouble with the authorities for scams. He would fit well into the Trump administration if there was a position of Secretary of Religion.  So that is the story of this unholy marriage of the neglect of nature.

In Praise of the Media

In this political season, one theme I heard over and over was the “dishonest liberal media.” Now, I will emphasize that I am not partisan and would vote for a good candidate if they were a Democrat, Republican or Independent. While most of this rhetoric has come from the Trump people, I did hear some of the same kind of grumblings coming from some Democrats.

I am not naive to think that the media is without its bias. I, intentionally, will switch back and forth between Fox News and MSNBC, just to see the profound spins on the same topic. Most media outlets are in the profit business and they will present the side that will keep them popular with their watchers.

With that said, the true, objective journalist (and there are plenty of them) are doing God’s work. If God is there, and I believe that he is, then he dwells within reality. The more in touch we are with truth, real truth, the more in touch with God we can be.  The more we engage in baseless conspiracy theories, the more cloudy God’s face becomes.

We live in a fallen and broken world. It is a dark place. The good journalists are the ones with the flashlights, washing away patches of darkness here and there. We need them.Those who blame or hate the media, are usually those with the most to hide.

The Journalist as a Prophet-type

 From Luke 1, Zechariah prophesizes about John the Baptist in the following:

76 And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;
    for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,
77 to give his people the knowledge of salvation
    through the forgiveness of their sins,
78 because of the tender mercy of our God,
    by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
79 to shine on those living in darkness
    and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace.

The modern day journalist is a type of prophet (imperfect prophet), whom God uses to bring light to this fallen world.  Of course, they cannot all be trusted, but surely they should not be hated. It is an honorable profession that any good woman or man could aspire to.

For many years I was a card-carrying Evangelical. Like most evangelicals, I was a Republican through and through as we were taught that was the only party God likes. I watched only Fox news and listened to Rush. I often heard within my church comments about the liberal media being out to destroy Christianity and  inject their humanistic agenda. My leaving Evangelism was a long and hard process (I tell that story in explicit terms in my upcoming book, Butterflies in the Belfy, Serpents in the Cellar).

Regarding my view of the media, one turning event was when a local Christian family caused the death of their adopted daughter. They were home-schoolers who followed the Dobson and Bill Gothard views of child rearing. To punish their daughter for wetting her bed, they forced her to lay on in their yard, in the snow, only in her underwear. She died an hour later from exposure.

I began to hear from my Christian friends that this dear Christian family were being persecuted by the liberal media. I heard this over and over until one day a light went off in my brain. Would I ever put one of my five children out in the snow in their panties? Of course not! This was insane, child abuse at least and murder at most. The media were the ones getting it right and the local pastors were the ones wanting to turn off the light and keep the darkness . . . well, dark.

Thank God for the media. They are doing God’s work. Those who shun the media and hate them are those, I believe, are the ones  infatuated with darkness.

Mike

%d bloggers like this: